RIED, you missed an excellent point you could have addressed concerning his selective reasoning for anecdotal evidence. Why is it that he holds others, who make equally asinine claims, in a different category of requiring evidence than he holds himself? I would find it entirely unreasonable that he does not believe another individual who claims to have observed a small nymph fly across the living room, and yet believe what he supposedly experienced knowing that they possess equivalent evidence. I would also question how he knows that the precise deity he claims exists today is the one that he supposedly had an "experience" with. How is he any different than any xenoconspiracy theorist who claims they have been implanted with a foreign signal device and are hearing the voices of "aliens". Can he be so sure that his anecdotal evidence is even reliable?

Why would he hold a separate, very low standard of evidence concerning something so outlandishly childish as the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient being, but hold a separate standard for something else? What is more reliable about his personal experience than anyone else's? Why does he selectively choose facts, or the lack thereof, to believe in? His inconsistencies in logic, his intellectual dishonesty, and his persistent ignorance in his answers for these questions (assuming he would not even admit to there being flaws in his unfounded, irrational claim) would display the level of delusion he has subjected himself to. Why bother arguing with him if he has his mind hellbent on the idea that his personal experiences are, somehow, superior to the millions of issues that share similar traits?

I find the "debate" you have transformed this into has no actual merit. Debating about morality of God with anyone is like debating about the morality of anything. There are, as of yet, very few empirical arguments you could present for something to be right or wrong. Debating morality is nothing but opinion, and what one might perceive as an evil might be a good deed to someone else. The same may apply to God, especially since Calvinists have managed to frame their deity and use the Bible's vaguely written words to define the atrocious monster they worship now. But reasoning with kingschosen about that point is like shouting at the brick wall next to your debate opposition. Not only are you screeching at the wrong target entirely, but you are never going to be able to make any progress. Bottom-line, what this argument has devolved to is the comparison of opinion. I would redirect this argument to kingschosen's weakest, most inconsistent claims. His anecdotal evidence, his double standards, and his mundane defense for it.